Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday January 30, 2011 @09:18AM
from the you-bet-they-do dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "The FCC moved to dismiss the net neutrality challenges filed by MetroPCS and Verizon, claiming they were 'filed prematurely.' Verizon and MetroPCS have both sued the FCC, arguing that the commission did not have the authority to hand down its December net neutrality rules. The FCC maintains that it does indeed have the right to regulate broadband, thanks to provisions in the Communications Act."

Corporations don't want to be regulated because it can cut into their profits. The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet. The corporations want to regulate the Internet for profit. So they jump the gun on filing a law suite. They will refile and in the meantime they push the cost of the law suite onto their customer. It's just a sad state of affairs. Actually the FCC should just proceed and get the law suite over with and not challenge that they filed to early. Why postpone the inevitable?

Premature not because the rules haven't been published, but because the FCC probably has no intention of enforcing them, and even if they attempted to, they would probably fail in the courts, again. Despite what the FCC says publicly, there is now certainty in the market, which is why we're now seeing more companies than just Comcast jump on the bandwagon to stovepipe the net.

Corporations love to be in a regulated business because it keeps competitors out. In his case, cellphone providers don't want to be regulated as bing in the same market as ISPs (even though they are starting to be).

why is it that on slashdot, with the talk of violation of civil liberties by the government, this general attitude about the FCC/net neutrality still exists? It's so sad that you guys who understand the value of civil liberties do not understand the government really is not pro individual or pro freedom. it's pro power. If the FCC had the power to regulate the internet and did so, and even assuming everything was as people wanted, how long do you think that would last? how long until we get the FCC spyin

you didnt make it. fcc made it, and it is now turning it back. isps are wanting to STEAL your money and property with this.its this. there is no simpler or more politically correct word. its STEALING. nothing less.

its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

this is what the ISPs say. they are attempting to do make monkeys out of the people, on people's land, with people's money, with people's rules.

This pathetic whine again. Too bad you don't see how these sorts of complaints backfire. The only way to screw over these companies is to break the peoples' rules. That opens the door to other entities (hey, like the FCC or tho

That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

The point you seem to miss is that the rule of law is more important than your misguided sense of fairness. One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair.

dont use stupid wordage like 'pathetic whine' etc when you dont get shit about what you are talking. the rule of the law, is the commission you named as FCC has the authority to CLASSIFY methods of communication.

fcc ITSELF has classified the internet as something before. now, it is classifying it as something else. it has the authority to do it. arguing the opposite means that you also do not recognize the prior classification based on lack of authority, which went on for two decades and you have ACCEPTED that status quo. if anything, no moron has the right to object to something they had went along with, accepting as legal, for two decades.

however foremost, a commission that has the authority to classify something, has THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY IT AGAIN.

if you have not been able to perceive the above concepts, dont reply to me. youll be ignored.

Just like a corporation NEVER has rights? Oh wait they are people too!! Lets not do anything that would harm those "people's" rights. They have a right to gigantic profit margins, right? Cant fucking get in the way of those now can we?

public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

Then how come some cities are charging extra for SUVs to drive on their streets?

public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

But I can decide who gets to ride in my car. Same with commercial vehicles. It isn't a public decision to decide what those vehicles carry, aside from satisfying safety and environmental regulation.

It's worth noting here that ultimately, it is the responsibility of the customer not government to determine the quality of the service with their ISP. And almost all places in the US have access to at least three ISPs by venue: telecomm, cable, and satellite-based providers.

its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.

The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.

No, the original poster argued that ISPs didn't really own their infrastructure because part of it uses public land. That's exactly analogous to the typical car. A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the same claim to ownership can be made for cars.

Not at all. Assuming your analogy has any accuracy (which it doesn't) A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the driver must follow the rules that these public roads and parking lots have. They must observe the speed limit, traffic laws, etc. They must make sure their car meets the inspections required for their state. They must go the correct way down a one way street. So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it. A dri

So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it.

The rules boil down to the utility has to inform the local government when it digs in certain spots. FCC regulation is not justified on these grounds, but because the ISP is engaging in interstate commerce.

The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.

This is a really important point. Allowing a federal government agency, any agency, to assume powers not specifically granted under law, is a bad, bad idea. Just because the FCC is doing things we like today does not mean that will be the case 10 years from now. Allowing them to assume this power now means they could just as easily change their minds later.

the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?

so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liki

the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?

so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?

screw that.

I think what I took away from your semi-coherent rant is that you adamantly believe the FCC is entitled under existing law to do whatever they like with the Internet, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid.

I'm probably just feeding a troll, but while I do wholeheartedly support net neutrality, I do not support a carte blanche for the FCC as the right path towards that goal. I want a clear law, voted for by Congress and signed by the President.

.....Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices......

if you are going to talk about economy and science history and make synthesis out of in between either of them, learn BOTH first. dont sell generic shit you have been conditioned to memorize in for-profit education institutions to 3rd parties. its an insult to

Our choices seem to be to trust a small (but increasing) number of companies with our Internet access or to trust a single government organization of non-elected officials. I say increasing because it costs a fortune to run fiber, but LTE is starting to look promising as a sole means of Internet access. And while I wouldn't trust Joe's Family Cellular to get me phone service outside of town I would certainly consider using him for a fixed LTE broadband connection.

Net neutrality = "Every packet is treated the same on the internet". It has nothing to do with the government enforcing regulations on the internet. It has everything to do with the government enforcing that NOBODY should enforce regulations on the internet.

Simplistic definitions like this are always fun. This is not a technical possibility. Small packets are queued differently from big packets within routers. ICMP is dropped before TCP. TCP flow control packets slow down connections. The idea that every packet is treated like every other packet is nonsense.

Every website needs to be equally accessible? What about CDNs? Don't they violate net neutrality or is it OK that companies that can afford them get

Repeating your strawman tripe doesn't make it true. The government isn't "regulating the packet" whatever the hell that means. The government is regulating the companies... telling them that they can't play favorites with internet traffic. There's no bureaucrat inspecting each packet as it whizzes by. They wouldn't have the funding to do that if they wanted.

I know Fox told you that government is always bad, but you really got to think for yourself. Major corporations (like News Corp!) have a vested interest in demonizing government regulation of major corporations.

An unregulated internet will quickly come to resemble cable TV. Having the FCC enforce some basic standard of net neutrality prevents that.

They became a censor by virtue of being given stewardship over a public resource and so a responsibility to see to it that anyone permitted to borrow it for their own use did so in the public interest. At the time, a bunch of swearing on radio and then television wasn't their idea of the public interest. I would fully agree that as social attitudes changed, the FCC regulations became increasingly outdated. Notice how the rules were much less restrictive for cable TV. That was a matter of the FCC recognizing

Comcast has repeatedly been caught, and admitted to, committing offences that would be in violation of net neutrality rules, unfortunately the FCC had previously classified the internet as something that it couldn't regulate so they suffered no penalties.

When given a choice between government control or corporate control, I will always choose government control. The government may be slow or difficult change, but at least the people have the ability to affect change in it's policies. We don't have the same

The FCC is appointed by elected representatives of the people, they can be unappointed at any time if the people elect new representatives, or if the people apply sufficient pressure to the existing representatives to act. The FCC gets its mandate from the government.

By your reasoning, the fire department and the police are not "the government" because they're hired positions instead of elected. Besides the Chief/Sheriff/Commissioner in some

I will vote for the presidential candidate whose policies will most likely cause him to appoint a good FCC chairman. If a president appoints a net nazi, I will not vote for him again and will consider his party suspect in the upcoming election.

Now, if your local cableco (the one and only choice for decent internet in many areas) hires a net nazi CEO (the sort that would use Sandvine products to shoot down connections he doesn't like for instance), exactly who will you vote in to or out of office in order to

If you're running firefox, install the moderatrix [userscripts.org] script for greasemonkey [mozilla.org]. It adds a confirmation button. I haven't had mod points since the site redesign so I'm not sure if it's still in working order, but if that's the case then it should be fixed soon

I saw this article [arstechnica.com] on Ars yesterday which is much better.

There is one very interesting bit covered in the Ars article which is not covered in the pcmag one. Verizon is asking for the same court that ruled in favor of Comcast and has hired the same lawyer that represented Comcast. The FCC wants the court chosen by lottery.

The thing is, internet is not the endgame anyway; there will be other venues...

And why would I want an "endgame"? As A.C. noted, this is a serious issue, whether you think it is or not. Such things can last for decades. After all, the FCC itself is was formed in the 1930s. Now an 80 year old organization decides on its own to regulate access to the internet. Why in the world do you think the impact of that choice will blow over in a short while?

Perhaps it has the right to regulate it, after all they do regulate telecommunications. Isn't the internet kinda like a digital form of that. I fail to see why everyone is so uptight about the FCC. If they can force the carriers to treat each and every packet the same I'm all for it. You know, just like how the carriers treated phone calls the same.

A government agency is a very dangerous beast. You have to be careful.

If they can force the carriers to treat each and every packet the same I'm all for it. You know, just like how the carriers treated phone calls the same.

And how big do the ISPs not "carriers" have to be before they are able to comply with these regulations? Keep in mind that it's not enough for an ISP to comply, it has to show the FCC that it complies. This is yet another regulation that favors big business over small which can afford the staff and know-how to comply with government regulation.

your argument about business size is disingenuous. how big do you have to be *not* to implement a tiered service structure, which no ISP in the US has yet implemented? Seems like a regulation that says 'keep doing what you've been doing' isn't too hard to comply with.

For bias purposes, you should know I want the FCC to mandate net neutrality.

A government agency is a very dangerous beast. You have to be careful.

As are corporations which is why we need the government to watch over them and why people are supposed to watch over the government and vote accordingly, protest where necessary and keep in contact with their congressmen and senators.

I know people rather just assume the evil FDR magically started this communication regulation to start a new world order to enslave us and expect the government to sort itself out without any effort on their behalf other than watching Fox News but those people are idiots.

There are always scary boogiemen that require the government to have more power. Not everyone uses the scary terrorists to rationalize government power grabs.

Sure if you ignore the fact corporations have caused more damage to the US than perhaps any other group including terrorists and corporations acts directly affect your way of life when you are talking about things like communication.

Otherwise why not put all roads or military in the hands of corporations? After all everyone seems to believe the government screws everything up so those two important things shouldn't be in their hands.

How's that turning out for us?

Not well but that's not really the governments fault. Can the employee b

FCC was instrumental in creating the AT&T monopoly, the single most harmful communication action in US history by anyone business or government. Do you yet see why I don't agree?

I'd argue that isn't the case because the Kingsbury Commitment put that monopoly in place before the FCC existed.

The idea was that they'd give up their controlling share of western union which at least stops them controlling two forms of communication, it was probably quite instrumental in the quick growth of phone services within the US and I think things like the US nationalising the phone network for WWI and then gave it back to AT&T as a private company at which point it was effectively a monopol

I'd argue that isn't the case because the Kingsbury Commitment put that monopoly in place before the FCC existed.

I'm not saying the FCC didn't do anything wrong but the US was well on it's way to take AT&T's advice to let them run as a monopoly for the benefit of the nation before the FCC existed and because there was some initial benefit I'm not sure if it's the worst thing to ever happen.

You could argue that. But any benefit was over by 1934. Also, please name a worse harm.

Also people can't go around saying the government fucks up everything and then think that actually they should run two very important aspect. It's partly due to the fact people know toll roads and the costs will shoot through the roof. Even if everything stays the same all that tax money that is wrongly going towards roads from other sources including tobacco taxes (when that money should go towards healthcare) would disappear and the slack would have to be taken up by drivers. They don't want that so it's ok to let the government control the roads.

Note that government does fuck up national defense and road building. I don't advocate that the government do these things because they are more competent, but because the conflicts of interest in a private national defense or road system are somewhat likely to cause problems.

Telecommunications is different in that many rival systems can operate at the same time. Hence, it is far more conducive to private operation and

You could argue that. But any benefit was over by 1934. Also, please name a worse harm.

I'd argue the Microsoft monopoly was worse. Sure people haven't been stopped from communicating but they have been given a tool that locks them into proprietary formats, an insecure system, generally allow around inferior system with back-doors for the government and even to this day MS is still using their browser lock-in to gain advantages elsewhere (ie pinching Google search results).

You can argue that Google is approach monopoly status and any competition is good but Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and anyone else

There are three things to note about the above claim. First, Microsoft's market dominance wasn't a monopoly at any time. Second, Microsoft hasn't had its period of market dominance very long compared to AT&T. Third, the AT&T monopoly was marked by a long stretch of stagnation. There really wasn't much difference in telecommunications service from the 30s through to the early 80s (automation of call routing behind the scenes being the prime innovation). But the so-called Microsoft monopoly presided o

In the 1930s President Roosevelt* ordered a farmer to "grow half as much wheat" as part of his rationing plan. The farmer said it's HIS land for his personal consumption by himself and his family, and he can grow whatever the hell he wants to grow on HIS property.

The Supreme Court heard the case circa 1940 and decided the farmer is merely a Serf of the State, and has no right to decide what he wants to grow because it "affects" interstate commerce ev

The FCC is all about regulating communications. What exactly do you think the internet is used for? The age of the FCC has no bearing on this mainly because no one within the FCC upon it's start is there now.

And before all the idiots come in here have a circle jerk over FDR and the FCC you have to keep in mind the FCC is only effectively an upgrade from the existing Federal Radio Commission which began under Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1926. Before that the government was regulating radio with the Radio Act of 1912.

Not that it matters if it was a republican or democrat who started this. Anyone with half a brain realises that something that greatly affects the whole nation and its education and economy should be watched over to ensure it's not shat on by corporations.

Mind you Republicans were different in those days. They didn't have an army of retards watching Fox News damaging their party.

If Slashdot were a tiny fringe site that had a handful of users, you might have a point. Given it's size, and the number of people that post daily, the only thing in your list that would even raise an eyebrow is then username. Even if they were the same person, Slashdot is large enough that one guy with two accounts would be a drop in any attempt to shift the tide of opinion. Maybe there is just something about the C64 that cause people years later to leave out quotes.

- Hitler drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.- FDR drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.Not an exact fit, but close enough to make the "fuhrer" comparison for both men. Actually a closer comparison would probably be FDR and Mussolini, or FDR and Julius Caesar, but whatever. This is just a web forum, not a thesis paper..

In the 1930s the Fuhrer Roosevelt* ordered a farmer to "grow half as much wheat" as part of his rationing plan (which also led to rampant food shortages). The farmer said it's HIS land for HIS personal consumption by himself and his family, and he can grow whatever the hell he wants to grow on HIS property.

The Supreme Court heard the case circa 1940 and decided the farmer is merely a Serf of the State, and has no right to decide what he wants to grow because it "affects" interstate commerce even if the wheat never leaves the farmer's Home.

That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. - How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on. THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching.

The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).

*

Excellent comparison. He did so many things back then that we would be outraged with now, like internment of Americans based on ethnicity, that cases like the one you cite get lost in the noise. However, the SCOTUS item you cite still haunts us today.*The other thing Fuhrer Roosevelt did was to jail people who dared say, "This war is wrong. We should not be involved," and to imprison 1 million Americans simply because they had grandparents who were japanese or german. (Thereby violating all 10 rights codified in the Bill of Rights.) Yes. I hate that guy.

Can you cite the Supreme Court case or are just another one of those idiots that believes anything Glenn Beck says?

And net neutrality isn't about the FCC regulating private websites, it's about the FCC preventing ISPs from stomping on those with competing products and on those that speak out against them. Your misportrayal of the situation marks you as either incredibly uninformed, or a corporate stooge.

FDR didn't demand anything; Congress had passed an act which limited the amount of land farmers could use to grow wheat. This act was passed in an attempt to stabilize national wheat prices (whether this was the right way to do it has nothing to do with whether it's constitutional, a distinction that tea baggers often fail to realize). Mr. Fillburn violated this act and grew excess wheat. The Supreme Court decided that the subject law was constitutional as part of

That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. - How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on. THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching.

The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).

Yet you have no problem with the government taking control of a portion of people's property to allow these companies to put up phones lines. By your logic the private companies should have to negotiate with every single land owner whose land they need to go onto.

If you want any sort of civilisation you do need someone to regulate some things. Otherwise you end up with land being polluted and trashed by corporations, every road being a toll road and the US would be one of the most backwards countries in

what a waste... can't people just stop bickering about meaningless things

will it matter next week? next month? in a year?

For you this may be a waste. But the average person has no clue as to the extent and importance of net neutrality. The more discussion about this subject and the higher the profile of this subject, we might actually begin to get some real discussion on net neutrality. Currently, the discussion centers around which version of targeted net neutrality will be implemented to benefit a special group instead of society as a whole.